He is supposed to be a scholar in Constitutional Law. It is a bill of attainder and clearly unconstitutional. But Obama would rather issues be framed in terms of his opinion than the Constitution, this way he has more power.

I'd prefer him to be less wishy washy, but as long as the bill dies, I'm happy.

The full quote is less coherent than that:

"Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don't wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't wanna use the tax code to punish people. I think that you've got an pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track."

It's oral and off the cuff, so the repetition is forgiveable. He's a very wandering speaker, though. I have no idea what he means by "ways of doing this".

I was struck by the number of entry points that are tonally inconsistent with one another: "Well I think", "as a general proposition","you don't want to", "I think you certainly don't want to" -- those are all tonally different versions of the same phrase.

Yes -- a little credit. He realized his earlier mistake (of fanning the flames and trying to use the outrage to his advantage). But I think he reversed course more out of self-interest than out of principle; he realized that this pitchfork stuff was likely to backfire and undermine his own policies. In particular, the administration realized Geithner's new plan would have no hope if nobody was willing to partner with the government out of fear that any profits would be expropriated through punitive, ex-post-facto tax laws.

"Taxes are going up. Sometimes directly, as "on the rich." Sometimes indirectly, as the savings of the middle class are inflated away. And mostly way-indirectly, as the poor are kept poor thanks to Obama's budgets putting the economy on permanent slowdown."

Only if it were true......and it isn't. Actions speak louder than words. I'll believe it when I see him veto tax increases that are specifically aimed punishing at a particular group of people.

Oh....and his words speak pretty loudly too. He uses weasel words and worm speak. Say one thing and do another.

He has already promised to stick it to the wealthy, meaning people who make over 250K. This amount, by the way, is not wealthy. This is also income and income is NOT the same thing as wealth. It is how you can accumulate wealth, if you get to keep some of the income that is.

"And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track."

Yes, it's unconstitutional. So we're looking for ways to get around the Constitution.

That's how the president is -- he speaks in generalities which sound moderate, but then his actions aren't.

Like saying that it isn't about expanding government, and then doing it, and so on. (Did you see that George Will column? Addressing Congress last week, the president said he is strengthening government "not because I believe in bigger government—I don't." Chant it, everybody: Yes you do.)

When his policy decisions start matching his general musings, then we'll start thinking of him as a moderate.

He has already promised to stick it to the wealthy, meaning people who make over 250K. This amount, by the way, is not wealthy. This is also income and income is NOT the same thing as wealth. It is how you can accumulate wealth, if you get to keep some of the income that is.

Please don't give the man ideas. I don't want a wealth tax on top of everything else.

I think until such time as Congress and His Supreme Holiness can demonstrate some sane fiscal responsibility themselves as opposed to increasng the national debt another trillion or three, they should all have a nice big mug of shut the fuck up.

I wonder why we are supposed to be grateful that Ceasar generally feels inclined to give a thumbs up sign, unless he doesn't. This is not Cesar O's Empire yet. He wants to assume the powers of a tyrant in the name of his marxist war on property owners Crisis. Bush was accused of Illegal Crimes just for adjusting to the reality of our Terrorist's communications Eavesdropping needs during a true war.

I think until such time as Congress and His Supreme Holiness can demonstrate some sane fiscal responsibility… they should all have a nice big mug of shut the fuck up.

You have to understand something. These people are all about political expediency, not responsible policy. Expediency makes them look good. Responsibility is boring and takes time; something they do not have since they are all running fro reelection instead of running a government.

Any serious economist will tell you trillion dollar stimulus packages are too be spent on primitive countries across the globe for it to have any effect. You spend it there so you don't have to spend it here!

As a general proposition,I think you [should adhere to Constitution of the United States]

Absolutely not, to answer your question. His statement marks his position as radical, if he has a position, which isn't clear. As ususal.

A moderate would say the tax code is never to be used to punish people, unless that tax code is violated, of course. But even here he doesn't give a rat's ass about that as long as the violator is a Democrat and being considered for cabinet position. <-- observed behavior, not opinion

Leave it to partisan wankers who screamed like bitches about shredding the constitution without ever bothering to cite exactly which portion got shredded to answer otherwise. Pffffft.

I agree with MarkW. He has (belatedly) realized that the Geithner Toxic Asset Plan has no hope of success without participation of the very financial firms that he and congress have been demonizing. You would have to be an idiot to sign up your company for this program in this atmosphere of 'outrage'. I hope he is learning from all these missteps, but I'm not terribly optimistic.

Incidentally, what an annoying site, The Hill. I do detest the text overlain with immovable adverts accompanied by additional pop-ups that further obscure text. When you've got to copy/paste just to read something, it pisses me off.

Apologies for the ill temper but do see no point to that beyond to aggravate all readers with too clever coding.

It's not broadly known today, due probably to Hollywood depictions, that when the caesar gave the thumbs up at the colosseum that meant "stick the gladius in the guy's body," a sort of one handed sign language depicting a body with a sword stuck in it. Conversely, when the caesar gave gave the thumbs down it meant "stick the gladius in the sand," meaning spare the victim, which was a disappointment to a bloodthirsty crowd. Movies would have us understand otherwise.

Yes, but come on. That's small potatoes compared to what we could get -- an annual wealth tax assessed on everyone whose collected assets exceeds, say, $500,000 or $250,000 or whatever. There's even a massive racial disparity here to whet Obama's wealth-spreading appetite.

Any serious economist will tell you trillion dollar stimulus packages are too be spent on primitive countries across the globe for it to have any effect. You spend it there so you don't have to spend it here!

garage, do you mean also places like Africa and South America or just places like Iraq? Cause if so, crack that champagne cork cause I'll be on your side.

Under what conditions would he want to use a tax punitively. He is leaving himself the out to use the tax as punishment if he cares to. It owuld be better if he just said we should never use the tax to punish. Then I would give him props. The way he put it, he is leaving himself the right to use the tax on the rest of us if we disagree with him. Look for the IRS to start auditing his enemies very soon.

The tax designed to punish people is the Estate Tax a/k/a the death tax. It is concieved as a punishment on the children for the sins of their father's being successful. I await the Demo's class war based confiscation law re-enacting that tax for 2010. I predict that will be one exception in Lord O's mind.

"James Madison said, in Federalist 44, that bills of attainder 'are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.' He was absolutely right. I will absolutely veto the legislation. If it is passed over my veto I will order the Department of the Treasury not to implement the tax, and the Department of Justice to seek its overturn in the courts. If I face, in the end, a court order to implement it and no further chance to overturn it, I will resign rather than violate my oath of office."

When challenged, Obama could add:

"Certainly, the bonuses shouldn't have happened, and I've said so. But that wrong doesn't justify undermining the Constitution."

and

"Sure, it isn't explicitly unconstitutional. The right to privacy isn't explicitly in the Constitution, either. The protections the Constitution gives to individuals must be interpreted broadly."

Obama would thus win points for standing up for principle and the Constitution; defuse claims that he's a socialist class warrior; calm the current bonus-controversy-inspired fears on the Street of cooperating with government economic recovery efforts; and add another brick of reinforcement to the Warren court right to privacy.

He doesn't mean a thing he says, when what he is saying is what he thinks you want to hear or that he has to say - and of course he has to say that, as a general proposition that is not a good idea.

No President should be activating his private stormtroopers to go to war against his own citizens - ACORN and every permutation of it and its self-pollinating little monsters should be abolished from the face of the earth.

"Groups" who use the grassroots cloak to deceive the people with the carefully perfected language of hidden lies must be outlawed. They currently operate without any oversight, outside of all of the laws of the land, no checks and balances, no accountability - he can do anything he wants with them, including intimidating private citizens who are his chosen scapegoats. The sacrificial lambs.

It is concieved as a punishment on the children for the sins of their father's being successful.

I'm curious, how are children "punished" by their parents' (and it is kind of sexist to imply that only fathers are capable of making money) estates being taxed. Are children entitled to be rich just because their parents are successful?

Generally, under the common law (civil law systems are quite different), parents can leave their estates to whomever they please, leaving their children destitute if they choose. Children have no legal right to their parents' estate. To argue that the estate tax punishes the children of the wealthy is ridiculous (this statement may have to be modified slightly in Louisiana and Puerto Rico).